Actually, the 3x is a far cry better than the 1.4x. Personally, raw glass is always best. It's the ticket you have to pay for this glass I have a problem with.

That's only if you buy crappy teleconverters.

11-20-2009, 12:17 PM

cdifoto

What's an "optical purist"?

Is that someone who likes quality?

11-20-2009, 01:51 PM

jekostas

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdifoto

What's an "optical purist"?

Is that someone who likes quality?

Someone who wouldn't put a throwaway teleconverter between a $1000 piece of glass and a $1000 camera body?

11-20-2009, 03:21 PM

DonSchap

It is a corn-fusing world!

Exactly, 'jekostas" ... according to you and the "others", if you are not willing to spend the $500 for T/Cs and whatnot ... STOP shooting images. Just STOP it.

According to these "pursists", they ask, "What is wrong with you people? If you you are not willing to pony up top dollar for the best and brightest, you are not worthy to post anything! STOP SHOOTING IMAGES!"

Thanks guys, for making the point. I knew I could count on ya! ;) Some folks are soooooo predictable. Attachment 50573

Although I will admit, it is darn nice to have a $1000 optic to go to, when you need it. In fact, having several is a fine option, too. Criipes, why not the whole bag? Oh yeah, that costs real money... Oh, where's the U.S. Senate and House of Reps when you need 'em, eh? They can spend our tax money like hogs to slaughter of innocents. What not throw top drawer glass for all good little girls and boys in an amendment? Just watch what happens this week! Abortions ... and everyone gets to pay for it. Now, that's a good use of my hard earned cash, birth control on MY dime. You play, I pay! Gee, thanks. May I have another?

The biggest problem you face using T/Cs is that dedicated or matched teleconverters are specially design for certain lenses to achieve optimum performance. There are only 3 dedicated/matched teleconverters for Minolta AF:

Dedicated/Matched teleconverters are only for specific lens because the distance between the first element and the mount is much shorter than 8-9mm therefore it will not physically fit with all lenses.

11-20-2009, 03:58 PM

DonSchap

Movin' on ...

Okay ... let's say the "purists" win ... and we have to use REAL lenses ... and not some bastardized version of something we are toting around due to weight constraints and vacation locales ...

Like other dedicated/matched teleconverter, its front element also sticks out of the lens tube. The Sigma APO EX DG teleconverters lens element actually stick out between 2-3mm beyond the lens mount and therefore it will not fit all lenses.

Note: Sigma has now introduced HSM lenses for Sony but according to users report the current Sigma 1.4X or 2X EX DG teleconverters are not compatible with its HSM lenses. Sigma is planning to introduce new teleconverters that are compatible with HSM lenses but the exact release date is still TBD.

and coming up with a 720mm f/6.3 and a 1000mm f/9 for the SIGMA 500mm f/4.5

and if we could actually get a SIGMA 800mm f/5.6, make up a 1120mm f/8 and a 1600mm f/11

These have to be amazing to see on a backpack. Probably would look more like "rocket-man."

Anyway ... real lenses eliminate the T/C conundrum, but are quite limited in the SONY realm. Getting out there can be a chore, no matter what you pick, at this point. I sense that next year, things will change, once again, when it comes to the LONG SHOT. ;) So, we live with fuzziness and smile.

11-20-2009, 04:32 PM

Rooz

if you want to prove your point, take an ACTUAL shot of something decent with that setup to shut everyone up.

if i want that sort of range, the money is better spent on a superzoom imo.

11-20-2009, 04:32 PM

jekostas

Or, you could just not use teleconverters and work with the glass you have.

And, what good is the shot of that polar bear if you have to explain to everyone that views it, "that's a shot of a polar bear" because it's so blurry and lacking in contrast they can't tell what it is?
It's painful to see a 3x teleconverter put on such a nice piece of glass.